What I meant to write was that it might be a Pentax issue where the camera is not passing/saving the correct lens info. in the image file such that Lightroom can't recognise it.

Having recently purchased a Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens I've been a bit disappointed that Lightroom seems not to recognize it, neither does it recognize my 180mm Macro lens.

Strange then that the zoom lens is included in this list of supported lenses and has been supported since version 3.0

Any ideas why my lens is not recognized in Lightroom 4.2?

EDIT: I have found the the lens profile for this lens does exist in Lightroom, but I have to select it manually, presumably because the lens is not recognised by Lightroom 4.2

I'm wondering if this is more a Pentax issue, perhaps the camera is not passing the lens data to Lightroom?

Photome displays:- Lens: Unknown (Lens Id: 8 23)

Some images of the lens might help you sell it.

My impression of image loading/editing speed might be more influenced by the capabilities of my, now aged, NAS box more than my network.

Well I thought that the OP was conspicuous by his/her absence, then I saw that this thread was started almost a year ago.

On this topic, nothing is more true than, "To each, his own".

Oops, my mistake John, sorry. This user posted the same question on another site. I answered it there.

Just another senior moment I'm afraid .

Weird, I made a post in this topic last night. Now it's gone.

I added a link to the Pentax O-ME53 1.2x magnifier. The KPS product with slightly higher magnification also gets good reviews on this site.

Yes, that is my view, but I'm also happy that others have a different view. If we were to have a poll of how many users (not just Pentax) have switched from JPG to RAW and vice versa, I'd bet a pound to a penny that there are more converts from JPG to RAW than t'other way round.

It's possible you misunderstood, or I chose the wrong words to use, but I was not trying to imply that JPG shooters aren't serious photographers. There are plenty of them on here, JR for one. Apologies to anybody offended by my previous post, it was certainly unintentional.

Perhaps I should have written "If you are serious about your photography you'll probably be shooting RAW, and a decent RAW processing package is as important as your choice of camera and lenses."

As a serious photographer you'll know how to use a camera and if you have the time to compose an image and get all the variables just how you want them, then JPG is fine. Landscape 'togs, for instance, will probably spend that time to get exactly the shot they want. Nowadays, as a race track photographer, I don't have the luxury of time, hence I shoot RAW.

I won't be drawn into the 'what's best' debate of JPG v RAW except to say that what's best is what suits and pleases the individual.

I shoot RAW because I don't have much time to play the 'old school' photographer to achieve perfectly framed and exposed shots in-camera.

I value the adjustment latitude afforded to me by shooting RAW that JPG choose not to benefit from, because I don't always (rarely in fact) get it right first time.

I crop almost all of my images as well as making other adjustments and it's a well documented fact that when you shoot JPG, make adjustments of any kind, then save the file, the initial JPG that was already missing a huge amount of image information, is degraded even further.

Bottom line is, why spend £1500 - £2000 on a camera body and decent lens, but balk at the thought of spending another £100 on decent RAW editing software. It doesn't make sense to me.

Mr Paxton must be a member here, and uses Lightroom.

Perhaps you are not as impatient as I am
I use a quad core Win 7/64 PC with 8Gb RAM and Gigabit Ethernet throughout. Keeping live images on a USB2 attached HDD works much faster for me.

@Matt, I use FreeFileSynch to create mirrored backups. It works very well and I liked the price, the clue is in the name .